bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Freedom of Religion
No full textMonday, November 4, 2024 | 12:30 PM | Eck Hall of Law, Room 3130
Come join STMS for a lunch-time talk given by Professor Rick Garnett. Professor Garnett will be speaking about Religious Freedom in Catholic Teaching and in Constitutional Law. Chipotle will be served.
Sponsor: St. Thomas More Societyhttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1943/thumbnail.jp
Why the United States Should Change Its Standards for Food Additives
No full textProcessed food products sold in the United States are vastly different than those in Europe, often containing unnecessary and potentially dangerous additives. Recently, food consumer advocacy groups and reporters are bringing attention to these differences, thereby raising awareness of the poor processed food quality in the United States. The United States should take a new and improved method to food safety that mirrors the European Union’s approach. This Note will compare the differences between food additives in the United States and Europe, and further, will propose solutions to increase regulation on food additives in the United States
Hillside Place, LLC v. Rahman
No full textIn this holdover proceeding, the landlord claimed that the tenant failed to renew a rent-stabilized lease at the legal rent. The court held that the landlord established the renewal offer compliant with the Rent Stabilization Code, while the tenant\u27s claims about prior rents were dismissed due to the Regina ruling limiting review of historical rents absent fraud. The court issued a final judgment of possession for the landlord but allowed a 30-day cure period for the tenant to sign the lease, and it denied a monetary judgment for use and occupancy due to prior payment. From the tenant\u27s attorney: In relying on Regina to refuse to apply HSTPA’s “last reliable registration†provision to determine the current lawful rent, the Court ignored Respondent’s arguments that the Regina decision expressly only addressed the “narrow†issue of expanding overcharge damages liability retroactively years after the fact; expressly did not address the remainder of HSTPA Part F; and actually acknowledged that (unlike expanding overcharge liability) returning units to stabilization and “ensuring the propriety of rents going forward†(i.e., by using the last reliable registration standard to eliminate past unlawful increases embedded in the current rent) are legitimate legislative purposes, and that unlike retroactively expanding overcharge damages liability, owners have no settled expectations about future rents given the volatility of rent regulation
Sugar, We\u27re Goin Down ?\u27: Major Questions Doctrine and the Securities and Exchange Commission\u27s Climate Disclosure Rule
No full textLast Call: The Limitations of New Mexico\u27s Existing Water Management Framework in the Face of Reduced Colorado River Water Deliveries
No full textBarring Judicial Review
No full textWhether judicial review is available is one of the most hotly contested issues in administrative law. Recently, laws that prohibit judicial review have sparked debate in the Medicare, immigration, and patent contexts. These debates are continuing in challenges to the recently created Medicare price negotiation program. Yet despite debates about the removal of judicial review, little is known about how often, and in what contexts, Congress has expressly precluded review. This Article provides new insights about express preclusion by conducting an empirical study of the U.S. Code. It creates an original dataset of laws that expressly preclude judicial review of agency action, which this Article refers to as “judicial review bars.” The findings reveal that express preclusion is a phenomenon: at least 190 statutory provisions expressly bar judicial review of agency actions. This Article then creates a taxonomy of actions barred from review. Most review bars target internal management decisions, such as decisions about how to allocate resources, set priorities, and manage personnel.
Because judicial review has traditionally been considered a core tool for overseeing agencies, this Article next investigates alternative oversight tools for actions barred from judicial review. When judicial review is barred, other structures often exist for political oversight, internal supervision, and public participation. Strikingly, review bar statutes often expressly create structures to facilitate such oversight. Alternative oversight structures include requirements to send reports to Congress, establish internal procedures, consult with stakeholders, and publish decisions. Furthermore, many review bars involve government spending programs, which are subject to appropriations oversight. Like judicial review, alternative oversight tools play an important role in promoting democratic values of deliberation, inclusiveness, and public accountability in the administrative state. A recent example at the Patent Office illustrates how the combination of review bars and alternative oversight tools can balance efficient implementation of programs with the need to protect individual interests and democratic values. Given the significance of alternative oversight tools in monitoring agencies, this Article argues that courts should consider the availability of alternative oversight tools when construing review bars, and policymakers should do the same when designing regulatory programs
